| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 環境教育研究所 === 93 === Rapid development of natural science and the segregation between human beings and the natural environment have caused a common paradox that one’s views of nature tend to neglect one’s actual experience of nature. Nowadays, people tend to acquire knowledge from books rather than firsthand experience in nature. The purpose of this research is to probe into people’s views of nature, and explore contemporary views of nature. The literature analysis method is applied to compile the connotations of different views of nature, including environmental ethics, historical view on earth, and modern environmental perceptions upon which the basic conceptual framework for interview were developed. The subjects of in-depth interviews were eight naturalists who currently work at Taiwan Forest Research Institute (TFRI). Fushan Research Station which located in a nature reserve. All of these naturalists had been working in nature for long time and with rich knowledge and experiences in nature studies. In-depth interviews were conducted to obtain the characteristic traits of the naturalist’s view of nature. The main findings from the studies are as follows:
1. Connotation of views of nature: significant life experiences (contact with nature, other people's influence, education, job, environmental experience and beliefs), essence of nature (definition, analogy, composition, course and experience), values of nature (natural resources, right of life, moral considerations and the value of nature), relation between nature and mankind (role, right, duty and management), and practice (edification, influence, cognition, impetus and suggestion).
2. Significant characteristic traits that have influenced the view of nature: diverse life experiences combined with abundant contact with natural environment, knowledge of nature through scientific concepts, disappointment with mankind’s role in nature, and education and learning experiences.
Based on above findings and analysis, the follow-up research on this subject and future development of public environmental education are recommended. Further suggestions including: revise the connotation framework on views of nature, conduct interviews via the “double topic” method, pay attention to privacy risks concerning interviews, and multiple and long-term interviews should be conducted with key persons from key areas. This connotation framework on views of nature may be useful in designing and developing systematic environmental education curriculums.
|
|---|
